MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316004578 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2012-0192

Red shiners (<i>Cyprinella lutrensis</i>) have larger eyes in turbid habitats

2012· article· en· W2316004578 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew B. Dugas, Nathan R. Franssen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
KeywordsBiologyHabitatEcologyPopulationSensory systemTurbidityNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The costs and benefits of investing in expensive sensory systems are shaped by environments that vary in the ease with which sensory information can be accessed. Fish provide an excellent model system in which to address questions of sensory evolution; while fishes rely heavily on vision, their visual environment is far more diverse and challenging than that of terrestrial animals. Turbidity, for example, alters the quantity of ambient light, its color, and the ability of animals to resolve borders of objects. Several comparative studies suggest that turbidity is associated with a reduction in the resources devoted to vision. Using these as a guide, we tested the prediction that turbidity and eye size would be negatively associated in populations of red shiners ( Cyprinella lutrensis (Baird and Girard, 1853)), a small-bodied cyprinid that is common and abundant in habitats spanning nearly the entire range of turbidity found in the Great Plains of the United States. We found that eye size was positively associated with turbidity, perhaps surprising given previous comparative work, but consistent with the finding that red shiners from turbid habitats display more intense nuptial coloration. This result highlights the need for further investigations of among-population variation to fully understand the mechanisms underlying sensory system diversity in animals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207